Ellen Whites doctrinal positions - did it ever change?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

It is clear the EGW made changes in The Great Controversy for the sake of correction.

Of course that was in her historical citations.

Please could you refer me to an example, Gregory?

You can read online every single change that was made in the GC as well as all of the recommendations for changes by W.W. Prescott, including the decisions and an explanation for those decisions.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html

[John317]

Mark, you asked an honest question and I gave you an honest answer from Ellen herself which shows that she never had to change position on anything she has taught. I posted this earlier. Did you miss it?

Of course her understanding grew but she never had to change her position as far as the messages given her from her Instructor are concerned.

I'm in fundamental agreement with you, sky. Her personal views did undergo changes, or growth, (such as regarding the Godhead), but Ellen White did not make significant changes in the messages that God gave to her.

On her view of the Godhead:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane13.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355113/Trinity-Doctrine-Among-Sda

[olger]

true

[Stan]

She was eating oysters until almost 1890.... that changed..

She spoke harshly to one lady who thought we should not eat pork... that changed.

there are way more...

[Stan]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

People tie themselves up in knots when they claim for EGW things she never claimed for herself.

In my opinon, which I believe has been demonstrated, sets people up to reject the actual place that EGW filled in the development of the SDA Chruch. An example of this is the author of THE WHITE LIE. He held her to a standard that she did not claim and when he became convinced that she did not meet the standard to which he held her he totally rejected her.

I so agree about the statement regarding the author of the White Lie.

He held one position about her, and, the days after he was one of the ones terminated because of necessary cut backs at the Southern California Conference, he changed his opinion 180 degrees. He had told some that were my fellow workers that he had done that to get even with the Church. He also encouraged his daughter to remain faithful with the Adventist Church, which she did.

[Guest]

Interesting.

[Kevin H]

Kevin: Good reply. Goes with what I have referenced as the central point of the message. As her grandson said: In regard to the evolution issue, the central point of her message was that God created, we did not evolve, and 6,000 years was not aa central point. That was likely based on the common acceptance of the work of Ussher.

In regard to requests that people have made for me to provide specific support/examples, don't hold your breath. I am traveling and about 1,100 miles away from home. I am not in a position to provide documentation.

Yes, I agree with you Gregory; however you might be interested to know a little bit more about her use of the 6000 years...

First, all but on reference is not focused on 6000 years but only using it as a general term for history and she interchanges the worlds "Almost" "About" and "For over" as agitives for the term 6000 years. This is like you said a term for people to realize that she was a creationist and based on the common acceptance of Usher.

There was however one time where she did write that the world was indeed about 6,000 years old. However as she was expanding and revising her work to form the book "Patariarchs and Prophets" she came across her old statement. In stead of putting in comments to her staff to expand the comment or at least include it, she crossed the entire comment out, put her initials over the cross out, and took a detour from working on Patararchs and Prophets to write an article where she down plays the 6000 years and tells people that what ever age they pick for the age of the earth, to just be sure to be fair to scripture.

I wish I had the reference. Both at AUC and at the Seminary there were Ellen White statements so shocking that the professor refused to read it in class as it would cause an uproar among the typical Adventists. They would give us the reference and send us to the libarary to read it for ourselves. Needless to say this is one of them...

Now this statement of Mrs. White is largely ignored in the church. A few years back there was a Sabbath School lesson on creation. Of the two Ellen White quotes, which one do you think got printed her earlier one that she later crossed out and went back away from or her later quote? Then in the 1990s there was an Adventist Theological Society meeting in Loma Linda California. I attended as much as I could. One thing that they were talking about was an upcoming conference on creationism that was more supportive of the 6,000 year old world. Now when I was in Andrews, the seminary professors said that the "About" 6,000 years was interpeted by most of the professors as 7,000 to 20,000 years (these were the professors who later formed the Adventist Theological Society). I approached, I can't remember his name but he was one of the giants in the church, I think he may have been involved with the White estate, he had a good Scandianvian name, I'm thinking either Anderson/Andersen or Olson/Olsen, I'd recognize his name if I come across it. Anyway I asked him about the Ellen White crossing out her one statement where she came out directly supporting the 6,000 years and the article she wrote downplaying the 6,000 years. The good elder had the article memorized and recited at least large portions, then said "I believe that God showed her that the dates in the Septuatate were correct and if you add the ages in the septutent together you come to 7.000 years" [My note:from what I understand, depending on the manuscript it comes to 7,000 to 10,000]" and 7,000 years is close enought to 6,000 years to support the 6,000 years."

I find it sad how Mrs. White was willing to move away from the 6,000 years, but Adventist prefer her older statement that she gave up to print that statement in our Sabbath School Lessons and to ignore her later statement, or be very aware of the later statement but dispite her running away from the 6,000 years how we work to rope her in as close as we can to the idea of the 6,000 years.

[Guest]

Interesting

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Kevin: Good reply. Goes with what I have referenced as the central point of the message. As her grandson said: In regard to the evolution issue, the central point of her message was that God created, we did not evolve, and 6,000 years was not aa central point. That was likely based on the common acceptance of the work of Ussher.

In regard to requests that people have made for me to provide specific support/examples, don't hold your breath. I am traveling and about 1,100 miles away from home. I am not in a position to provide documentation.

Yes, I agree with you Gregory; however you might be interested to know a little bit more about her use of the 6000 years...

First, all but on reference is not focused on 6000 years but only using it as a general term for history and she interchanges the worlds "Almost" "About" and "For over" as agitives for the term 6000 years. This is like you said a term for people to realize that she was a creationist and based on the common acceptance of Usher.

There was however one time where she did write that the world was indeed about 6,000 years old. However as she was expanding and revising her work to form the book "Patariarchs and Prophets" she came across her old statement. In stead of putting in comments to her staff to expand the comment or at least include it, she crossed the entire comment out, put her initials over the cross out, and took a detour from working on Patararchs and Prophets to write an article where she down plays the 6000 years and tells people that what ever age they pick for the age of the earth, to just be sure to be fair to scripture.

I wish I had the reference. Both at AUC and at the Seminary there were Ellen White statements so shocking that the professor refused to read it in class as it would cause an uproar among the typical Adventists. They would give us the reference and send us to the libarary to read it for ourselves. Needless to say this is one of them...

Now this statement of Mrs. White is largely ignored in the church. A few years back there was a Sabbath School lesson on creation. Of the two Ellen White quotes, which one do you think got printed her earlier one that she later crossed out and went back away from or her later quote? Then in the 1990s there was an Adventist Theological Society meeting in Loma Linda California. I attended as much as I could. One thing that they were talking about was an upcoming conference on creationism that was more supportive of the 6,000 year old world. Now when I was in Andrews, the seminary professors said that the "About" 6,000 years was interpeted by most of the professors as 7,000 to 20,000 years (these were the professors who later formed the Adventist Theological Society). I approached, I can't remember his name but he was one of the giants in the church, I think he may have been involved with the White estate, he had a good Scandianvian name, I'm thinking either Anderson/Andersen or Olson/Olsen, I'd recognize his name if I come across it. Anyway I asked him about the Ellen White crossing out her one statement where she came out directly supporting the 6,000 years and the article she wrote downplaying the 6,000 years. The good elder had the article memorized and recited at least large portions, then said "I believe that God showed her that the dates in the Septuatate were correct and if you add the ages in the septutent together you come to 7.000 years" [My note:from what I understand, depending on the manuscript it comes to 7,000 to 10,000]" and 7,000 years is close enought to 6,000 years to support the 6,000 years."

I find it sad how Mrs. White was willing to move away from the 6,000 years, but Adventist prefer her older statement that she gave up to print that statement in our Sabbath School Lessons and to ignore her later statement, or be very aware of the later statement but dispite her running away from the 6,000 years how we work to rope her in as close as we can to the idea of the 6,000 years.

That is interesting Kevin. :-)

[Twilight]

It seems to me that many things Ellen White believed where received culturally.

But there were specific things she received as revelation.

Those revelations are unerring.

But the other components were not received directly from God, but from her culture.

Your thoughts?

Mark

[Twilight]

Second question:

Usage of Ellen Whites writings.

I see a number of positions expressed in the church two of which are:

1. The SOP should be used to establish doctrine.

2. The SOP should not be used to establish doctrine.

3. The SOP is a useful guide to lead one through the bible and establish biblical doctrine.

Does somebody have some thoughts on this?

Mark

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

I would like to be shown where EGW had claimed to have had light given by the Holy Spirit

which she would later abandon for a different light.

ps

In response to the previous post:

The SOP may point to a certain direction, but I believe ONLY the Bible should be used to establish doctrine.

[Twilight]

Just tagging on.

I would like to be shown where EGW had claimed to have had light given by the Holy Spirit

which she would later abandon for a different light.

ps

In response to the previous post:

The SOP may point to a certain direction, but I believe ONLY the Bible should be used to establish doctrine.

I agree, I think there is a danger when vague quotes from Ellen White are used to establish doctrinal positions.

Especially when the Bible is silent on the matter.

I have seen this happen so many times.

I was also introduced to this idea that Ellen Whites writings are the basis of all doctrine when I came into the church.

But I am beginning to see that many take quotes from Ellen White, or simple statements and then try to make the bible fit one interpretation of that statement.

I think that is very dangerous.

This has often happened with the health message.

I think we need to be a people of the book if we are going to witness to the world.

What is the point of quoting Ellen White at people, it will only alienate them, they will not understand.

Just some thoughts that are coming to me, as I see her writings misused.

Mark :-)

[Jeannieb43]

[sorry. I'm out of town and don't have time to read this entire thread, so I may be repeating somebody else here....]

Several years ago I attended a Sabbath School class in Loma Linda which was being taught by a member of the White Estate. I think his name was Elder Baldwin. He stated categorically that there were two known areas in which Ellen White changed her position on an item which she at first had felt had been given to her by God in vision.

The first one of these two things was the hour of the day for Sabbath-keeping. She at first taught the Adventist members to keep Sabbath from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sabbath. Later on, after the brethren had done further study, she became convinced that the sacred day should begin at sundown on Friday and end at sundown Sabbath [saturday].

I can't recall the second of the two things Eld. Baldwin gave as items on which Ellen White had changed her position. But this one sticks in my memory.

[John317]

He stated categorically that there were two known areas in which Ellen White changed her position on an item which she at first had felt had been given to her by God in vision.

The first one of these two things was the hour of the day for Sabbath-keeping. She at first taught the Adventist members to keep Sabbath from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sabbath.

Was this merely an opinion of Mrs. White or did Ellen White write or say that God had shown her in vision that the Sabbath was to be kept from 6 PM to 6PM?

[John317]

1. The SOP should be used to establish doctrine.

The doctrines must be established on the Bible. Ellen White herself was very clear about that.

However, we must also consider this:

At the Sabbath Bible Conferences in the late 1840s, the men would study the Bible and then come to conclusions on certain doctrines. Ellen White was not part of these discussions, although she was present, but she had no understanding of what was being presented or said. After they had studied the Bible and when the men still couldn't arrive at a consensus, Ellen White would be given a vision from God which helped them arrive at the truth. So in that case, the SOP was used to help the early Adventists establish some of our doctrines.

[phkrause]

According to George Knight it wasn't EGW who said to keep the sabbath from 6-6, it was Joseph Bates. He convinced James and Ellen white to that effect. Than James White was the one that never liked that idea and he had John Nevins Andrews study into that in 1855. And than after andrews gave his report they had a session of pray and that's when EGW received a vision from God, that sunset to sunset was correct.

pk

[Guest]

That's interesting pk

[Gregory Matthews]

John317 said:

Quote:

At the Sabbath Bible Conferences in the late 1840s, the men would study the Bible and then come to conclusions on certain doctrines. Ellen White was not part of these discussions, although she was present, but she had no understanding of what was being presented or said. After they had studied the Bible and when the men still couldn't arrive at a consensus, Ellen White would be given a vision from God which helped them arrive at the truth. So in that case, the SOP was used to help the early Adventists establish some of our doctrines.

I have some reservations in regard to the above comment.

An earllier post made reference to R. W. Olsen of the White Estate. (And also reference to the LXX.) Olsen had he PnD in New Testament and would likely be considered by many to be an expert in SDA history. He was clearly conservative, and a professor of mine at PUC prior to going to the White Estate.

I Believe that he would have taken issue with your characteriaation of ht Sabbath Conferences. It was his view that EGWs mind was often locked, so to speak untill the so-called "Bretheren" had reached agreement. Then he would susggest that she would agree with the decision that had been reached. But, she did not contribute to the decision.

Olsen was a firm advocate of the position that the SDA Church derived its doctrines from the Bible and not from EGW.

[phkrause]

Richard I've been reading his daily devotional for this year. Its pretty interesting to say the least. I love history so this devotional was right up my alley. Its basicly a history of how the adventist church came about.

pk

[teresaq]

the way she relates it is so beautiful, and such a lesson for us!!

using the words

Quote:

Sabbath and Sanctuary Conferences of 1848

gives a very different view of the reality. they met in homes and they were bible studies. the disappointment happened in 1844, so im not sure if two different events are being talked about here.

Quote:

Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, [OLDER BRETHREN AMONG THE PIONEERS ARE HERE THUS REMINISCENTLY REFERRED TO. "FATHER PIERCE" WAS STEPHEN PIERCE, WHO SERVED IN MINISTERIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IN THE EARLY DAYS. "FATHER ANDREWS" WAS EDWARD ANDREWS, THE FATHER OF J. N. ANDREWS.--COMPILERS.] Elder [Hiram] Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me. {1SM 206.4}

During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given. {1SM 207.1}

Quote:

. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided. One point at a time was made the subject of investigation. Solemnity characterized these councils of investigation. The Scriptures were opened with a sense of awe. Often we fasted, that we might be better fitted to understand the truth. After earnest prayer, if any point was not understood, it was discussed, and each one expressed his opinion freely; then we would again bow in prayer, and earnest supplications went up to heaven that God would help us to see eye to eye, that we might be one, as Christ and the Father are one. Many tears were shed. If one brother rebuked another for his dullness of comprehension in not understanding a passage as he understood it, the one rebuked would afterward take his brother by the hand, and say, "Let us not grieve the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus is with us; let us keep a humble and teachable spirit;" and the brother addressed would say, "Forgive me, brother, I have done you an injustice." Then we would bow down in another season of prayer. We spent many hours in this way. We did not generally study together more than four hours at a time, yet sometimes the entire night was spent in solemn investigation of the Scriptures, that we might understand the truth for our time. On some occasions the Spirit of God would come upon me, and difficult portions were made clear through God's appointed way, and then there was perfect harmony. We were all of one mind and one Spirit. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 4}

Quote:

We sought most earnestly that the Scriptures should not be wrested to suit any man's opinions. We tried to make our differences as slight as possible by not dwelling on points that were of minor importance, upon which there were varying opinions. But the burden of every soul was to bring about a condition among the brethren which would answer the prayer of Christ that his disciples might be one as he and the Father are one.

Sometimes one or two of the brethren would stubbornly set themselves against the view presented, and would act out the natural feelings of the heart; but when this disposition appeared, we suspended our investigations and adjourned our meeting, that each one might have an opportunity to go to God in prayer, and without conversation with others, study the point of difference, asking light from heaven. With expressions of friendliness we parted, to meet again as soon as possible for further investigation.

At times the power of God came upon us in a marked manner, and when clear light revealed the points of truth, we would weep and rejoice together. We loved Jesus; we loved one another. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 5}

In those days God wrought for us, and the truth was precious to our souls. It is necessary that our unity today be of a character that will bear the test of trial. We are in the school of the Master here, that we may be trained for the school above. We must learn to bear disappointment in a Christ-like manner, and the lesson taught by this will be of great importance to us. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 6}

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 7}

[Stewart (SDA)]

Returning briefly to the thought about the 6000 year age of the earth.

I have been looking for any indication that Mrs. White ever distanced herself from that view.

I have not found it, but what I do have now, is a collection of comments from Mrs. White where she uses that 6000 year figure.

I have 30 statements, from the 1860's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 1907, 1909, and then from the 1911 edition of the Great Controversy.

All these statements present the 6000 year view. I find no inconsistency in her work on this point, and find that not one person here has been able to produce one statement to the contrary.

(Of course there are a number of additional statements that refer to the 2000 year span between the creation and the flood. Again there is not a shadow of turning or inconsistency on this point.)

I will most willingly acknowledge inconsistency in her teachings when I am shown it.

Regards,

Stewart.

[Gregory Matthews]

teresaq(sda):

The so-called Sabbath Conferences were a group of specific meetings held in an attempt to come to common agreement on specific doctrinal issues by the people who later organized into the SDA church. They have been referenced as such for many years by SDA historians.

My menory has forgotten the specific number of Sabbath Conferences, although I think it was about four (4) (perhaps five?). I would also have to do some research to find out the specific doctrinal issues that were discussed, although I have an idea.

[Gregory Matthews]

Stewart:

I have never stated that EGW changed her personal view on the age of the Earth. Although, I acknowledge that you have not stated that I have made such a statement.

I personally subscribe to the view of EGW's grandson as to what her personal beliefs were in regard to the age of the Earth:

1) There is no record that God ever gave EGW a 6,000 year age for the Earth. The major focus of EGW's statements was to the effect that God had created, we did not evolve.

2) EGW's personal belief in regard to a 6,000 year age for the Earth came from the common belief of her time that Archbishop Ussher was correct in his belief that has commonly been described as a 6,000 year age for the Earth.

3) EGW's personal beliefs in regard to the age of the Earth were approximate and not locked in to an exact 6,000 years.

4) While I do not think that EGW would ever have extended her personal belief in the age of the Earth out to 10,000 years, I am willing to agree that she would have been willing to go beyond 6,000 years.

The questions that you ask go beyond a simplistic framework in which they can be stated. They involve basic issues in regard to inspiration, revelation, and the humanity of the prophet. Prophets were human beings. Sometimes God corrected their personal beliefs and sometimes God did not. Their humanity is often revealed in the Bible.

Jacob had some specific beliefs in regard to genetics that God corrected (See Genesis 30:37-43 and Genesis 31:10-13). I will suggest that God corrected for Jacob's personal spiritual enrichment. Yet, in other places, God did not correct the personal beliefs of the prophets in regard to the shape of the Earth.

Think about the cultural time in which EGW wrote: Evolution vs. creation was the issue. Did we evolve or were we created? God spoke to EGW, we were created. The time frame was not important within this context. The issue of creation vs. evolution was important. The religious people of that time had accepted the work of Archbishop Ussher in regard to the chronology of Genesis. The errors that he had made were not generally known and accepted. There was no reason for God to send EGW off on a tangent what would have been rejected when the specific age of the Earth was not the issue. God has never been demonstrated to have corrected every wrong belief of a prophet. Every Biblical writer can be assumed to have held wrong beliefs in many areas of knowledge to include spiritual issues. God did not correct those. Rather, we can be certain that God has had a message that God wanted taught to people and that message has been preserved and is trustworthy. It is not important what a Biblical prophet believed in regard to the shape of the Earth. The central message in regard to God and God's activity in human life with the consequent salvation is what it important.

[John317]

John317 said:

Quote:

At the Sabbath Bible Conferences in the late 1840s, the men would study the Bible and then come to conclusions on certain doctrines. Ellen White was not part of these discussions, although she was present, but she had no understanding of what was being presented or said. After they had studied the Bible and when the men still couldn't arrive at a consensus, Ellen White would be given a vision from God which helped them arrive at the truth. So in that case, the SOP was used to help the early Adventists establish some of our doctrines.

I have some reservations in regard to the above comment.

An earllier post made reference to R. W. Olsen of the White Estate. (And also reference to the LXX.) Olsen had he PnD in New Testament and would likely be considered by many to be an expert in SDA history. He was clearly conservative, and a professor of mine at PUC prior to going to the White Estate.

Hey, that's remarkable. I had him in SOP at PUC also, in 1974. I heard him give his farewell talk in chapel before leaving for the White Estate. He now (at least as of about a year ago) lives only a few miles from me in Cherry Valley.

Quote:

I Believe that he would have taken issue with your characteriaation of ht Sabbath Conferences. It was his view that EGWs mind was often locked, so to speak untill the so-called "Bretheren" had reached agreement. Then he would susggest that she would agree with the decision that had been reached. But, she did not contribute to the decision.

Olsen was a firm advocate of the position that the SDA Church derived its doctrines from the Bible and not from EGW.

Ellen White would only be given visions at the conferences if after study the brethren still could not agree. The vision would be either that the brethren needed to study further, or, as you say, cause her to agree with the decision. All I am saying is that the visions of Mrs. White were relevant to the doctrinal development of the church during those early years, but at the same time, they certainly did not take the place of Bible study.

It's well known that Ellen White's views strongly influenced the SDA church to move from an anti-Trinitarian view to that of acceptance of the Trinity. It's a doctrine clearly (I'm convinced) found in Scripture, but due to the spiritual background of many of our leaders, the church had a struggle accepting the Trinity. Without Ellen White, I don't think there's any doubt that the church wouldn't have changed as it did, nor when it did. It began to change about the year that Desire of Ages was published (1898), and it didn't become thoroughly Trinitarian until the 1940s. In fact, Robert W. Olsen himself was opposed to the Trinity as late as the 1940s. Many men of influence, such as M.L. Andreasen, wrote of how they were persuaded to change their view of the Trinity on account of the writings of Ellen White.